General principles of tactical effectiveness

[rupol2000]

When we grasp something, we usually first touch and then grope for a more effective position. For example, if we play a chord, we first touch the strings, and then the hand specifies the position. When we go along the pipe, we balance, it means that our vestibular apparatus always adjusts the position of the body. Etc.

This means that we are giving control down to lower layers that we do not consciously control.

This means that the most effective tactic is to forward command down to small groups and local units so that they can act on their own. In addition, units can coordinate actions bypassing the center

It follows from this that a disciplined and rigidly vertically controlled army is ineffective and loses more manpower.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Well yeah... so?

 

[rupol2000]

Well yeah... so?

I just wanted to discuss, maybe I missed something

 

[Crepitus]

When we grasp something, we usually first touch and then grope for a more effective position. For example, if we play a chord, we first touch the strings, and then the hand specifies the position. When we go along the pipe, we balance, it means that our vestibular apparatus always adjusts the position of the body. Etc.

This means that we are giving control down to lower layers that we do not consciously control.

This means that the most effective tactic is to forward command down to small groups and local units so that they can act on their own. In addition, units can coordinate actions bypassing the center

It follows from this that a disciplined and rigidly vertically controlled army is ineffective and loses more manpower.

Congratulations, you've just figured out what various military organizations have known for thousands of years.

 

[rupol2000]

Congratulations, you've just figured out what various military organizations have known for thousands of years.

It is possible, but this does not always apply. For example, linear formation tactics are not this type.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

It is possible, but this does not always apply. For example, linear formation tactics are not this type.

Because back in those times, they had an honor system that we would never even think of. It was honorable to die back then in line formation.

 

[rupol2000]

Because back in those times, they had an honor system that we would never even think of. It was honorable to die back then in line formation.

I think it was just because they were taking non-professional soldiers to increase the impact mass.

 

[rupol2000]

line formation

The system itself originated from the Macedonian army against the archery cavalry. The formation worse shot through

 

[Confederate Soldier]

I think it was just because they were taking non-professional soldiers to increase the impact mass.

I disagree. The British army was the most advanced in the world in the 1770s. Professional soldiers trained in the tactics of military order and warfare. They stepped out in line march on the battlefield. They weren't untrained meatshields.

 

[rupol2000]

I disagree. The British army was the most advanced in the world in the 1770s. Professional soldiers trained in the tactics of military order and warfare. They stepped out in line march on the battlefield. They weren't untrained meatshields.

It can't be. It is too wasteful to use professionals in such primitive tactics. Even if the British military leaders were fools, it was not to the same extent

 

[Confederate Soldier]

It can't be. It is too wasteful to use professionals in such primitive tactics. Even if the British military leaders were fools, it was not to the same extent

You say it can't be, but it was. The British held a very high standard of honor-ability and morality, and the tactics fitted the weapons of the time.


It wasn't until after the American Civil War, that we stopped lining men up in formations packed like sardines. Why? The invention of the rifled musket. Before, a musket could only be accurate up to 100 yards, if that. But when rifled muskets came out, accuracy improved dramatically, even at much increased ranges. Then it became necessary to fight a new kind of war.

 

[rupol2000]

You say it can't be, but it was. The British held a very high standard of honor-ability and morality, and the tactics fitted the weapons of the time.

Once again: they weren't idiots

It wasn't until after the American Civil War, that we stopped lining men up in formations packed like sardines. Why? The invention of the rifled musket. Before, a musket could only be accurate up to 100 yards, if that. But when rifled muskets came out, accuracy improved dramatically, even at much increased ranges. Then it became necessary to fight a new kind of war.

Jaeger units were used for accurate striking during that times of linear system. Accurate arrows have always been, archers fired exactly the same.

But in field mass battles, accuracy is not important. Muskets were used precisely to draw non-professionals into the war.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Once again: they weren't idiots


Jaeger units were used for accurate striking during that times of linear system. Accurate arrows have always been, archers fired exactly the same.

But in field mass battles, accuracy is not important. Muskets were used precisely to draw non-professionals into the war.

They weren't idiots, they were men enslaved to an honor system, one that you cannot wrap your mind around apparently.

Why do you think archers fired en masse? More arrows in the sky, means more damage, and while they MAY have been accurate, they could only travel so far, and be accurate only up to a certain range.

Muskets was all they had back in the 1700s, besides cannon. Cannon need no explanation.

 

[rupol2000]

They weren't idiots, they were men enslaved to an honor system, one that you cannot wrap your mind around apparently.

The honor system is known mainly in the cavalry, it is known by the hussars and knights cultures. It not apply to the infantry, they were recruits from peasants and mercenaries

 

[Confederate Soldier]

The honor system is known mainly in the cavalry, it is known by the hussars and knights cultures. It not apply to the infantry, they were recruits from peasants and mercenaries

So just because you are poor, doesn't mean you can be an honorable soldier? I thought you were rambling about the chain of command earlier. Aren't the soldiers led by honorable and wealthy and well to do officers?

 

[rupol2000]

So just because you are poor, doesn't mean you can be an honorable soldier? I thought you were rambling about the chain of command earlier. Aren't the soldiers led by honorable and wealthy and well to do officers?

Poverty has nothing to do with it, the knights were also poor, this is a military aristocracy with other morals. The common people did not accept duels, contempt for merchants, courage and everything else that was considered an honor for the military aristcrats

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Poverty has nothing to do with it, the knights were also poor, this is a military aristocracy with other morals. The common people did not accept duels, contempt for merchants, courage and everything else that was considered an honor for the military aristcrats

Well whatever you believe, go ahead.

 

[rupol2000]

Well whatever you believe, go ahead.

There is no "faith". All these are known facts. There was a case when several knights took an unequal battle and all died, but did not accept the help of the merchants. There is a song "The Cavalry Guardian not live long", everyone knows that the hussars constantly staged duels, and were people of krisstal honor. This culture died in the 19th century. There is a concept of knightly values in cultural studies. These people lived by other values than the common people and the merchant rabble; their courage was valued above all else, they took out weapons whenever possible.

 

[rupol2000]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is possible, but this does not always apply. For example, linear formation tactics are not this type.

Stuck in the Colds War after 30 years?